They already have. Look at the coverage of the Epstein case. One of the reporters from a major network was told to shelve it when he was arrested in 2006. Or Julian Assange: hardly covered his release at all, and never said anything about his years of detention without trial.

▲

JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Look at the coverage of the Epstein case

Incessant.

For true muzzling, it’s a honest debate about intentionally provocative political speech in the wake of Charlie Kirk. (TL; DR we learned nothing.)

▲

gosub100 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Hate speech? I think the system is working as designed. You the the right to say whatever inflammatory rhetoric you want. What the 1A doesn't give you is the freedom from consequences of the hate speech. As we've seen this past week.

▲

JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> the system is working as designed

The founders didn’t envision speech being policed with guns. That is absolute nonsense. The system is clearly broken.

That requires debate as to whether norms are failing to adequately police speech in an era of social media, and if the First Amendment’s idealistic vision of lawless self-regulation has failed. (Alternatively, how we can bring non-violent shame back into the envelope of norms.)

▲

kasey_junk 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many of the founding fathers engaged in duels. I do t think they particularly wanted violent politics but they certainly lived in a world where what you said could get you killed by a gun.

▲

gosub100 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The founders didn’t envision speech being policed with guns. That is absolute nonsense

That's an absolute strawman. No provision in our government allows the use of force to counter ideological disagreement. What a bizarre thing to say.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That's an absolute strawman What did you mean when you responded to a comment about what happened to Charlie Kirk by talking about “the system…working as designed”?